Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 70

"Tracts for the Times. — "V.—Miss O'Gorman and God

"Tracts for the Times.

"V.—Miss O'Gorman and God.

. . . . 'Her whole lecture was little more than a relation of her doings with her three noted friends, Archbishop Wood, Archbishop Spalding, and God. Her conversion took place at midnight, while alone in her own room, and after her escape from the convent For some reason she cursed the Catholic God, and immediately the Protestant God took advantage of the opportunity and made her a Protestant. The Protestant God then impressed upon her the necessity of advertising him to the detriment of the business of the Roman Catholic God. She determined to do so. She determined to go about lecturing, and God acted as advance agent for her first lecture. She wanted to hire a hall to give the lecture in, but the loser refused unless a certain deposit was given. She had not the money, but God "softened the heart" of the lessor, and he gave her the hall without requiring a deposit, and, if her lecture proved ft failure, without charge. God also applied his softening influence to the Editor of a Protestant paper, who consequently advertised and gave prominence to her lecture without any guarantee of payment. What a convenient God this would be to those who are not considered "good marks." God also helped her to address the large audience that assembled to hear her first lecture. Perhaps "helped" is not sufficient; perhaps it would correspond more nearly to what Miss O'Gorman said if I wrote, "God addressed the meeting, merely using Miss O'Gorman as an instrumont." Since then this Protestant God has been taking good care of her, although once he permitted the followers of the Roman Catholic God to send a bullet through her bonnet. This is Miss O'Gorman's God. This is the God she "threw over" the Catholic God for. Think of him—a sort of powerful flunkey to her!'

Did you write that?—I do not remember even seeing it.

Are you ashamed?-I cannot toll until I hear the whole of it. There may be things in it of which I nifty be ashamed, but I cannot tell until I hear all of it.

Are you ashamed of having edited and conducted a paper like that 1-—My dear sir

Don't "dear sir" me!—No. I am not ashamed of it I think I may have made a great mistake in editing it, but I am not ashamed of it.

You wrote another letter to Bishop Luck?—I really cannot remember until I see it. 'Paper handed to witness] Though not the writer of this I accept responsibility for it.

It is signed "Ivo"?—Yes-

[Rationalist of 8th November, 1885, containing article on education handed in.]

"Catholic children receive more religious training than any other children—how is it that there are more criminals among these than among other children:-Catholic children form the largest proportion of those "hoodlums," Ac, of whom the editor of the Bell writes. How is this? Freethinkers' children are taught absolutely no religion so-called. Will the editor descend to particulars, and point out the children of any Freethinker who can be characterized as "hoodlums, &c.? Will he point out any of these religionless children who are criminals or in reformatories? Here is ft practical test of the value of religion as a moral agent. We will take any twenty children haphazard from any Christian Sunday School, the editor to take a similar number from a Freethought Lyceum. The forty so chosen shall be publicly examined on morality. We will pay.£5 to any charity if the young Freethinkers are not better acquainted with morality, better mannered, and more amenable to discipline than the juvenile Christians."

That is in the paper of 8th November, 1885. Now, you have sworn that you always advocated State aid to Roman Catholics?—No; I said I had always advocated the superior right of the parent in the education of children to that of the State, and consequently I could conscientiously—

You said "right under the present system." That is what you said. I will just read a portion of this paper.

"In this .... very same pastoral, nay, in the very sentence of it now under reply, you abuse the education laws of the country, simply because those laws prevent you obtaining the complete mastery over the minds of little children; preclude you in a measure from inoculating them with your own gross superstitions, and keeping them in the black bondage of Romish ignorance. And you, and your brother Bishops are for ever gnashing your teeth on this subject of secular education; and yet you admit Protestant children into your convent schools, and solemnly contract to give them no religious education at all. You either keep that promise and give, for page 8 money, a 'godless' education; or yon ignore your solemn contract, and promise that which you do not perform; of which of these crimes, may I ask, are you guilty? Do you, for a moment, suppose that, to still your insensate ravings, the people of this country will forego the one great boon that they possess—free, secular, and compulsory education? The miserable and petty distinctions of caste are already making themselves felt enough in this New Zealand; whose only salvation consists in being free and democratic; but still I do not think you will persuade us to add another link to the chain of ignorance and superstition, by allowing you and your brother priests to teach your revolting dogmas at the public expense. Endeavour then, Mr. Luck, to become a good citizen, by respecting a law which, of all laws, most undoubtedly obtains by the wish and desire of the majority. Be content with the baleful influence you already exercise, nor tempt your doom by that intrigue and agitation, so familiar to the gentlemen of your cloth."

Did you write that?—I say I take responsibility for that, and that it was written five years ago.

There is an article about the "Vice-Regent of Heaven." Are you ashamed of that?—No, sir; I am not ashamed at all. Would you kindly let me look at it. Whatever I wrote I wrote believing it to be true according to my lights.

Even if true do you consider it decent?—There is nothing at all indecent or obscene. It is an answer to an attack on Freethinkers by Bishop Luck, who called us the froth and scum of society. We answered in a similar strain, but not perhaps with the same learning. Others were mixed up with me in the Rationalist.Some of this matter may have been written by other persons and been altered or amended by me.

If as you say you advocated State aid for Roman Catholic schools how do you justify your previous writings?—Even as Freethinkers we say that the first duty of the parent is to instruct the child in preference to the State—that is, if the parent is able to do it. Therefore I see no hypocrisy in my advocating State aid to Catholics.

Is that your writing on page 5 of the same paper? Who was "Memphis" in the Rationalist?—I do not know; but if I did I do not know that I would be justified in telling you.

Not if you were?—I was not.

Here is another article "The Devil among the Churches." That is the heading. Do you say you did not write that?—Yes; I swear I did not write it.

But you accept responsibility for publishing it?—I was the editor of the paper.

Your Honour, I call attention to it, and ask the jury to look at it. In my opinion it is dreadful, and I am ashamed to read it. I put it in.

His Honour—My previous observations applied to the first article you read. With regard to this I am not prepared to say—I cannot say there is nothing scandalous or indecent in it. With regard to State aid to Catholic schools, that is fair ground.

Mr. Jellicoe—On page 2 of the Rationalist of June 6 we find—[Already referred to.]—Did you write that?—I did not write that, but there is nothing there, as far as I can see, to object to.

Do you stand by that?—I have altered my opinion since, but there is nothing disgraceful about that.

Look at the Rationalist of the 27th June, 1886. There is an article there headed "The Genuine God "?—That is a letter written to the editor, at you can see.

But if the letter is sent to the editor you, as editor, approve of it?—Oh, no; editors receive numberor letters they do not approve of any agree with.

I say if the writer of that had been brought up on a charge of blasphemous libel he would bar? been liable to conviction. The next article in headed, "Some Reasons for Disbelieving in the Christian God "It is signed" Ivo "?—Yes, that I have no objection to, but I object to you taking isolated passages.

Do you stand by that?—I stand by it in the sense of my frame of mind then—not now ft was written five or six years ago.

You told Mr. Gully you never were an Atheist:—I never was an Atheist.

In your publication, the Rationalist you adopted, I believe, to some extent the principles of the late Mr. Charles Bradlaugh?—To a certian extent.

When did you abandon what you call Rationalism?-When did I abandon the promulgation of Rationalism? I have not lectured since about five and a half years ago—since my connertion with the Rationalist.

Have you never lectured since?—I may have: lectured once, but I have not lectured for about five years,

Can you give me an idea when yon joined the Catholic Times how long it was when yon last lectured?—About two and a half years. I have: been on the Catholic Times two years and three quarters. I think my last lectyre was in November, 1886. I have a suspicion that I delivered lecture subsequently, but cannot fix it.

You have called yourself a Freethinker?—A Secularist.

Have you ever abandoned what you called the principles of Rationalism?—Have I ever made public recantation? No; I have abandoned the teaching of Rationalism.

Since you joined the Catholic Times?—Long before I joined the Catholic Times I determine never to speak on that question again. I came to the conclusion that I was doing more harm these good. I regretted the whole of my propagands which was forced upon me, I imagined, by the position at the time.

I suppose you then became a convert and thought that the principles you had advooatedto some extent Mr. Bradlaugh's principles and opinions—were wrong?—I cannot say I think the were wrong.

His Honour—You cannot examine the witness on his private opinions.

Mr. Jellicoe—I think your Honour will see what I mean by the next question. (To witness,—Have you during your connection with the Catholic Times—since the death of Mr. Brad laugh—made an attack upon his opinions of principles?—Never one word; not in the [unclear: Catholic] Times or elsewhere.

Do you accept responsibility for what appear in the Catholic Times?—I accept [unclear: editor] responsibility.

That is you accept responsibility for all mate outside the advertisements?—Correspondences might give opinion. I should not shut out all opinion.

Do you write the "Wellington Watchman" column?—Yes.

Have you not attacked the memory of Mr. Bradlaugh in connection with his opinions and principles?-Certainly not

Or attacked the principles of Freethought?—I have attacked Sir Robert Stout and Mr. Ballana, who are both Freethinkers,

On Freethought?—I may have attacked some of the tenets of Freethought. But if you say abused Freethinkers, I say no.

Have you not attacked the principles [unclear: and] opinions promulgated in the Rationalist?—I[unclear: may] page 9 have attacked some of the opinions. I think it is highly probable.

And in the Catholic Times you have alao in your writings supported the Soman Catholic Church—the Church you previously reviled?—I do not know what you mean.

Hare you not supported the Catholic Church?-I certainly have not gone against the Catholic Church.

Mr. Gully—These questions are not fair. My friend wants to ask the witness if ho approves every particular paragraph written. The witness is expected to go over the whole range of what he has written, and everybody else.

Mr. Jellicoe—Pardon me, I ask him if he has written under the head "Wellington Watchman" certain matter. (To witness)—You say you have attacked some of the principles you previously advocated?—I think it possible—quite possible. A man's mind is not stationary.

You joined the Catholic Times when?—In March, 1889.

Did you inform Archbishop Redwood at the time of the principles and opinions you had promulgated in the Rationalist?—I was engaged in the first place by Mr. Bunny.

I ask a distinct question: Did you at that time inform Archbishop Redwood that you had previously promulgated certain opinions in the Rationalist?—I did not give him that fact. I think be knew it.

Do you think he knew anything of the articles produced this morning?—I do not know. I have never shown any of them to him.

It was not part of your business to supply him with copies of the Rationalist?—No.

Coming to the interview which you had in July 1890, with Messrs. M'Girr, D. P. Fisher, and Henrichs. At that interview was it not pointed out to you by the deputation that your office, the Orthotic Times, was undercutting the other printing offices in the city?—The deputation asked me a question to that effect, and I told them no.

You denied it?—I denied it.

Did you know at that time that the other offices were working under Association rules?—I knew that some of them were. Dwan did not work under Association rules, and I am not quite sure that the New Zealand Times did.

The Evening Post?—Always, I believe. Being a wealthy paper it could afford to work under Association rules.

Did not the deputation tell you that your office was able to undercut every other printing office in consequence of your paying a lower rate of wages to your employes?—They asked me whether it was so, and I told them no.

Did they not tell you distinctly that you were paying a lower rate of wages than any other office in town?—They asked me if it was a fact that Cooper "farmed" the paper, and I told them of the arrangement which was made. Did you not say, sir, that you could not see how he Association could suffer if you were paying lower wages than other printing offices in town?—I do not remember that remark.

At that time did you know whether there was a Master Printers' Association in existence?—There was a Master Printers' Association.

Did you join that?—Yes, and afterwards resigned.

When did you join the Master Printers' Association?—I really could not tell you.

A week or two before?—I imagine six or seven months; I may be wrong.

And you obtained a copy of their tariff on joining?—I could not tell you, sir, one way or the other. I do not think I did. I rather think not.

When did you become acquainted with the tariff?—I do not know whether one was supplied me or not, I may have had it.

You obtained information from it?—I did not obtain information, for I am as wise now as ever.

Did you not receive a copy of the tariff and then retire from the Association?—If I received it it had nothing to do with my retiring from the Association.

How long were you a member?—A day or two.

I ask is it not a fact that by joining the Association you obtained certain information as to the tariff and then retired?—I swear not.

Why did you retire in a few days?—Because I reconsidered the position altogether with my employer and then withdrew. The Archbishop never saw the tariff.

Did you confer with the Archbishop before joining the Master Printers' Association?—After joining.

Before retiring?—That I will swear; I am on my oath.

Did you not tell the deputation that the rate of wages you were paying was below the tariff of the Master Printers' Association?—The Master Printers' Association had no tariff of wages. Theirs was a tariff of charges against the public—a totally different thing.

Did you not toll the deputation that the Catholic Times was paying a lower rate of wages than the Master Printers' Association?—I do not understand your question. I never discussed with the deputation whether I was paying loss or more.

Did you not, after you heard what was alleged by the first deputation, namely, that the Master Printers complained that your tariff was less than theirs, promise to consult the Archbishop about the matter?—I do not think I did. I think they were pretty well satisfied with our charges. They were not very much under theirs. We were doing little or no jobbing.

Mr. Gully—My friend is confusing the tariff of the Master Printers' Association with the wages of the printers,

His Honour—The two may go together. The low rate of wages may induce low charges.

Mr. Jellicoe—That is so. (To witness)—Did you not ask the deputation to give an estimate of the cost of what you would mark in the Catholic Times?—No, it was for the whole of the Catholic Times.

Do you remember the deputation asking whether the paper was "farmed?"—I do not remember the expression. They might have done so. My idea of farming was that a man was paid so ranch for getting out the paper and selling it. I told them they were misinformed, but that Cooper got a certain sum for printing the paper.

Did you say it was nothing to you how many employe's were on the paper?—Undoubtedly I said it was nothing to us.

It was nothing to you how many men and boys were employed?—Nothing in the ordinary acceptation, so long as nothing improper was going on.

Did you tell them you had no control over the men?—I said that Cooper was allowed to choose his own men, but if anything improper was brought to my notice I should have to int erfere.

If you agreed to give Cooper £14 8s a week would it have been any concern of yours what he paid the men?—It would have been if there was any "sweating" done.

You object to "sweating?"—I should have objected to "sweating", very much.

Was not an improper number of boys in proportion to men employed?—Who rules the proportion? They complained that there was an improper number of boys.

You said that was Cooper's business?—I do not remember saying anything of the sort.

Do you remember one of the deputation pointing out that Cooper was making a good thing out of it?—Yes.

page 10

What rate of wages did they tell you they understood Cooper was paying to hie men?—I think £2 5a as the maximum.

What was the minimum paid at the Evening Post office at the time?—I have no knowledge; I do not know.

Did they not tell you the minimum waa £3 in other printing offices in town?—Yes, by most of the other printing offices.

What was the average number of men employed by Cooper?—Do you mean "hands" or men? How do you differentiate between boys and men?

What do you mean by "boys?"—Youngsters; young fellows under 18.

How many boys were there?—There were three or four men over 18.

How many boys?—About four; they fluctuate.

Two pounds five shillings was the maximum wage at the time?—I think so. Of my own know ledge I do not know. I asked Cooper what they were receiving, and he said one or more had £2 5s, to the best of my belief.

It was after the deputation saw you that you asked Cooper?—Earlier I think. Probably before the deputation approached me, in order that I might answer what might be asked.

How many were receiving £2 5s?—I had a general impression that two out of the four were getting that.

What was the average rate paid to the boys?—That would depend upon capacity. I think from 10s to 30s; perhaps more.

Did you give that information to the deputa tion?—No.

Why not?—It was no duty of mine to impart information to an irresponsible body.

When they said that you not only undercut the wages, but undercut the charges of the employers, you never undeceived them?—They made state ments which I contradicted, but I did not take them into my confidence.

Cooper received £14 8s and distributed it among the workmen, retaining any difference himself?—Yes.

And you do not call that sweating?—Certainly not. Neither does the Royal Commission.

You promised to consult the Archbishop and send an answer. Did you at any time prior to sending an answer communicate with the Typo graphical Association, or any member of it as to what you intended doing—between July, 1890, and the letter of September, 1890, giving your final decision?—No.

Did you inform the Archbishop that Cooper was paying a maximum wage of £2 5s when the mini mum in other offices was £3?—I imagine so. I talked over the whole circumstances with his Grace on more occasions than one.

Did you tell his Grace what the difference was that Cooper put into his pocket?—Yes, I told him what I thought it was; about £2 10s or £2 17s 6d out of the paper.

Then these men did all the jobbing work?—No, Cooper did all that.

Did not some of the men assist?—They may to a certain extent.

How much out of the jobbing did Cooper make?—I cannot tell exactly. The Archbishop has the accounts of the jobbing.

How did you pay Cooper for the jobbing?—He charged for the composition at a rate.

Can you give the average Cooper made weekly?—He would make weekly out of the jobbing about £2.

I am speaking of the period July to September, 1890?—I think during 1890 we were doing very little jobbing. He would make about £5 a month.

Is that the information you gave the Archbishop at the time?—Yes.

Has the rate of wages increased?—Yes, I believe so. Of course it has increased Cooper's wages.

I am not asking about Cooper, but the wages paid to the men.

In answer to His Honour, witness said Coon charged the office for composition and machining the office finding everything else. The amour paid for this was over and above the £14 8s, paid for getting out the paper.

Mr. Jellicoe—I ask, if the jobbing has increased, has the wages paid to the men increased:—I think so. Since the early part of this year some of them have been getting £2 10s.

More than one man?—Two or three, I belive.

That is 10s under the minimum?—10s [unclear: under] what some of the offices pay—the Evening [unclear: pce] for instance. That is an exceptional case. [unclear: It] the wealthiest paper in the town.

We will take the Evening Press, which is [unclear: even] wealthier, and the New Zealand Times. Is [unclear: not] £3 the rate there?—I do not know. I [unclear: believs] they pay what they call the Association rate.

Even Giles' office? Is not jours the only [unclear: office] which is sweating in town?—I won't answer [unclear: the] question in that form. I say the assertion is [unclear: not] proved.

You are undercutting the tariff in [unclear: advts]:—We charge a special tariff. We admit [unclear: there] is no comparison between a weekly paper [unclear: and] daily paper.

His Honour—There is no pressure?—[unclear: No] sir.

Mr. Jellicoe—There is a pressure for [unclear: advts] (To witness)—You wrote a letter of the [unclear: 20th] May, 1891, answering a letter of the [unclear: Association] of the 19th, addressed to the Archbishop?—[unclear: About] that date.

"Catholic Times, Willis-st. "Wellington, N.Z.

"The Secretary Wellington Typographical [unclear: Assciation].

"Sir,—In reply to your letter of 19th [unclear: instant,] addressed to his Grace the Archbishop of [unclear: Wellington], I am directed by his Grace to state [unclear: that] the management of Catholic Times being [unclear: eatiraj] entrusted to the Manager, his Grace sees [unclear: no] quate reason why he should interfere, and [unclear: does] not think any good or useful object would [unclear: it] attained by his reception of the proposed [unclear: despution] of the Typographical Association. Hie [unclear: Gress] must therefore [unclear: deoline] to receive the depots in question.

"His Grace further desires me to point out [unclear: this] he has been informed that the Association [unclear: promised] to wait upon the Manager Catholic [unclear: Times] early in 1891, i.e., in January, 1891, and did [unclear: not] do so.

"I am. Sir,"

Your obedient servant,

"J. Evison,

"Manager C. Timet"

Is that the letter?-Yes.

When did you get that direction from [unclear: it] Archbishop?—The very same day that I [unclear: wrote] the letter-I cannot be certain.

Do you mean to say the Archbishop told [unclear: you] to write in that strain?—Undoubtedly he told me [unclear: to] write the letter, I oannot say as to the strain.

Did the Archbishop tell you, when he gave [unclear: you] the direction to write the answer of the 20th, [unclear: that] he himself had replied to Henrichs?—No, I [unclear: do] It not think he did.

You know the Archbishop's writing, I [unclear: belives] Look at that letter:—

"St. Mary's Cathedral,

"Wellington, N.Z.,

"Sir,—In reply to your letter requesting [unclear: the] favour of an interview with a deputation from [unclear: the] New Zealand Typographical Association, I [unclear: beg] page 11 say that you do not specify in your communica tion the object of that interview. Before I can give a definite answer to your request, I shall be obliged by your giving me more definite informa tion on the matter, and then I hope to comply with your request.

"Yours truly,

"†Francis Redwood,

"Archbishop of Wellington."

"To J. W. Henrichs, Esq."

Is that the Archbishop's writing?—Yes, I think I have seen that before.

Then on the day following you wrote your letter of the 20th, saying you had been directed by His Grace, &c. Will you explain these two letters?—There had been an understanding be tween the deputation and myself that they should approach me in the early part of 1891. They had not done so, and it is quite possible that when His Grace received the Association's letter he had no knowledge of this. When he saw me I said it was an attempt to get behind me and at him, and he then instructed me to write.

You had a strong objection to this request?—I had a strong objection to persons who had pro mised to approach me trying to report me to my employer.

But the Archbishop says he hoped to comply with the request, and you say you prevented him?—I had no power to prevent him doing any thing. I had no doubt he would give proper weight to anything I said to him.

Nothing took place between 1890, when you promised to meet the deputation in the early part of the year, and the date of these letters?—No, the Association never approached me.

Did you approach the Association or any mem ber of it?—No.

Mr. D. P. Fisher was a member of the deputa.

Is this the Catholic Times of 31st October, 1890 (handed in)?—Yes.

You edited it, and are responsible for the literary matter it contains?—Yes.

Your letter of September, 1890, promised to meet the deputation in the early part of the following year, and this is an article which ap peared about D. P. Fisher, one of the deputation?—Tea. I attacked him as an agitator, not as a compositor.

You have attacked other people?—I have attacked other people. I daresay I have attacked you.

Did you attack the Association?—I may have attacked the Association for fostering the strike and then refusing to go out when asked to by their fellow-workmen.

Don't you know that the Typographical Associ ation really brought the strike to an end in 1890?—No, I am not aware of that.

What reason did you give in May, 1891, or previously, for refusing to go into the Association?—I had given a variety of reasons. I had promised to reconsider the matter early in 1891, but they did not come for the decision.

Why then did you object to the Archbishop receiving the deputation in May, 1891?—Because I considered they should deal with me, as I had reconsidered the matter. I could not help them going to the Archbishop, but I objected to it very strongly. The Archbishop was consulted as to all subsequent letters.

Did you not tell his Grace that it was an impertinence for these people to go behind your back?—I simply said there was no occasion for putting ourselves in the hands of these people. I was not very much against the Archbishop's receiving the deputation, but I was to making different arrangements in the office.

Your own opinion was that he should decline?—When the Archbishop asked my opinion I pre sume I gave it that way.

Two of the letters you call libellous, and claim £600?—Yes.

Did the Archbishop know at the time you were first employed by him that you had conducted a Freethought journal and lectured on a Freethought platform?—Yes.

Did he know the terms on which Cooper was printing the paper?—Yes, but I do not suppose he knew what Cooper was paying individual men. He knew that Cooper got £14 8s, and that he produced the paper for that amount.

Did the Archbishop know that the men were getting less than what was paid in other offices?—I imagine he knew that less, for instance, than what was paid in the Evening Post office.

Cross-examined at length as to the letters of September, witness said the Archbishop took them to him and asked his opinion about them. He replied that there was but one answer, which should go through his solicitor, as the letters were grossly libellous. Witness consulted his solicitors, and a draft of the letter they drew up was approved by the Archbishop. Although £300 was claimed for each letter, he considered that the letters should be taken in conjunction. The meaning he drew from the letters was such as he considered 99 people out of 100 would draw. The letters were decidedly defamatory, taken together. He was not the person who received the £14 8s, but the money went through his hands. He was the overseer and supervisor, not Cooper, and he considered the references directed against himself. The reference to concealment imputed disgraceful motives to him as manager; He denied that the system of work in the office was sweating, or even bad, and believed that his Holiness the Pope referred to a totally different state of things in his Encyclical. He had not the slightest objection to the Typographical Associa tion interfering with the Catholic Times office, so long as they kept within proper bounds, otherwise he would not have received the deputation. The defendants were not aware that the Arch bishop knew that he had conducted a Freethought journal and lectured on a Freethought platform, and did not know that he was not likely to lose his employment. He did not object to-the state ment of fact, but to the inference conveyed that he was an unfit person for compositors or any other persons to communicate with. He could conceive a man conducting a Freethought journal and lecturing on a Freethought platform being an estimable person, if he was sincere and his moral character was good.

Would you consider a man who conducted a paper containing such scurrilous articles as were read this morning a fit person to conduct a reli gious paper?—Yes, if a certain time had elapsed and he had changed his views.

Re-examined by Mr. Gully—As a matter of fact you have conducted the Catholic Times since March, 1890, without complaint?—As far as I know.

I understand you to say that there were several persons connected with the management of the Rationalist?—Four besides myself. A portion of the time I had a sub-editor.

Had you a complete control over the matter introduced into the paper?—Not a complete con trol.

A syndicate printed it?—Yes.

The Freethought Review, edited by Mr. Ballance, defended Freethought, did it not? also the Echo, edited by Sir Robert Stout?—Yes.

I further understand that several persons had a hand in writing these letters to Bishop Luck?—Yes.

Mr. Jellicoe—I say he is responsible for them, as they were signed "Ivo."

page 12

Mr. Gully—With regard to the two letters for which you have accepted responsibility, and portions of which you appear to have written, was there any provocation for writing them?—Dr. Luck issued a pastoral, attacking Free thinkers in general terms as sensual and immoral, and the froth and scum of society; and the letter read was a reply to that portion of his pastoral. The pastoral was very bitter, and the reply to him, I am ashamed to say, was quite as bitter.

I should like you to explain a little more as to what you mean, when you say that from the views you held then, you were not ashamed of these letters you have taken responsibility for?—From the strong views I held, and seeing that the Rationalist was started as a 6ghting paper, and that the Freethinkers of Auckland were getting unmitigated abuse. It was a fight, not carried on with absolutely good taste, but it was a fight.

You did not profess to justify what appeared in the paper?—I did not profess to justify at the time much that appeared in the paper, still, other people had a different idea as to the propa ganda.

The article of the 25th Oct., 1885, was a copy from the Secular Review, was it not?—It was a reprint from the Secular Review, a paper gene rally acknowledged to be an ably-conducted Freethought paper. The Review was misled by an American paper which published it from a filthy publication called Maria Monk, and I was misled also. The article appears on the face to have been taken from the Secular Review.

You have never made a definite attack on Freethought?—No.

You have changed your views?—I have changed my views, but cannot define how. I think, on calm reflection, that the views expressed in the Rationalist were an utter mistake. An honest mistake, but the method and views were wrong.

Have you ever professed to be—taking the word in an extreme sense—an Atheist?—No, and I have never met a rational man who was. I have held views that this world was all we are certain of, and that we should make ourselves happy and comfortable in it, and let the other take care of itself. I never denied the existence of God, or attempted to do so. I may have denied the existence of the character Jehovah, or the authro pomorphous conception. That is a very different thing.

Did you ever deny the existence of the Deity as promulgated in an orthodox sense?—I think it would be fair to say that I attacked rather the practice of the Christian Churches than Chris tianity itself—nothing that was good and true.

Mr. Jellicoe—The publications will speak for themselves.

Further re-examined, witness said to a certain extent his mind was a blank regarding the Arch bishop's letter of 20th May. He was strongly under the impression that his Grace told him to give a formal answer. It was perfectly untrue that he had attempted, for his own purposes, to sway the Archbishop. It was absurd to say so. He never had an animus against Fisher when he wrote the paragraph previously referred to, nor against the Association. When he discovered that the article he reprinted from the Secular Review was a hoax he did not publish an apology for it, because the Rationalist had ceased publi cation, and he himself had the matter pointed out to him at Napier.